Status of Pathfinder Starts

[LukaSlovenia29]

Aha, thanks, I've failed to notice that!

 

[Horvath Broncos]

I for one think this setup is great. It makes early game very interesting. The combination of pathfinder and first policy being so expensive makes early game more interesting than ever. Before I went almost always with shrine, monument, warrior/settler but now you have many choices in the early game. No culture tiles have to build monument, spawn near tundra and warrior is very important, going authority need two warriors fast and in all this situation I still want that sweet sweet pantheon.

 

[Txurce]

I wanted to share some thoughts on how beginning the game with our newly renamed unit, the pathfinder, impacts the game...

Thoughts?

I don't have a problem with pathfinders being much the better bet for ruin popping than other units. It's the price you pay for going with quantity over quality. But I wouldn't care much if the edge were reduced to 33%.

I also don't have a problem with weaker ruins (like maps). The imbalance is no worse than the imbalance in how many you find in a given game. It creates variety. The map ruin has one advantage that justifies it for me, by the way; it gives me a shot at reaching a CS first. The difference in that payoff is pretty significant. Even the one that gives XP is fine if it were buffed, as already suggested.

I like the idea of starting with a warrior and a pathfinder, but wonder if the AI initial unit advantage would then result in even less ruins to pop, due to overcrowding.

I'm happy with promotions as they are by and large, and dread the inevitable manifestos on which promotion paths are most appropriate.

The only impactful imbalance I've seen is that the AI rarely uses pathfinders or scouts offensively. It gives my scouts a flat-out unfair edge. I win too many early wars with ONE UNIT.

 

[lalalaprout]

The only thing than can really create an early game imbalance imo is whether you find a culture ruin or not. Opening a policy tree really accelerates your early game, and doing so 20ish turns later than your rivals if you're unlucky is a much bigger disadvantage than missing out on any other ruins.

 

[ElliotS]

I don't have a problem with pathfinders being much the better bet for ruin popping than other units. It's the price you pay for going with quantity over quality. But I wouldn't care much if the edge were reduced to 33%.

I also don't have a problem with weaker ruins (like maps). The imbalance is no worse than the imbalance in how many you find in a given game. It creates variety. The map ruin has one advantage that justifies it for me, by the way; it gives me a shot at reaching a CS first. The difference in that payoff is pretty significant. Even the one that gives XP is fine if it were buffed, as already suggested.

I like the idea of starting with a warrior and a pathfinder, but wonder if the AI initial unit advantage would then result in even less ruins to pop, due to overcrowding.

I'm happy with promotions as they are by and large, and dread the inevitable manifestos on which promotion paths are most appropriate.

The only impactful imbalance I've seen is that the AI rarely uses pathfinders or scouts offensively. It gives my scouts a flat-out unfair edge. I win too many early wars with ONE UNIT.

The AI already gets like 5+ units on diety, and 2-3 on other levels. I doubt one or two more would change things too much.

The only thing than can really create an early game imbalance imo is whether you find a culture ruin or not. Opening a policy tree really accelerates your early game, and doing so 20ish turns later than your rivals if you're unlucky is a much bigger disadvantage than missing out on any other ruins.

Should we remove culture ruins? That could solve that issue right away.

 

[Txurce]

The AI already gets like 5+ units on diety, and 2-3 on other levels. I doubt one or two more would change things too much.

Should we remove culture ruins? That could solve that issue right away.

You're probably right about the congestion issue. I wouldn't remove the culture ruins. They may be the best -- something has to be -- but the gold, production and tech bonuses can all be game-affecting.

 

[CrazyG]

Should we remove culture ruins? That could solve that issue right away.

I don't know, if we removed culture and the bad options (which the popular seems to favor removing) we would only have like 5 types of ruins

I thought a big part of the policy cost rebalance was to reduce the impact of things like culture ruins, and I feel like the +50% (or even a potential +33% bonus) really takes away from that goal.

 

[Funak]

I don't know, if we removed culture and the bad options (which the popular seems to favor removing) we would only have like 5 types of ruins

I thought a big part of the policy cost rebalance was to reduce the impact of things like culture ruins, and I feel like the +50% (or even a potential +33% bonus) really takes away from that goal.

Honestly, is the current weak culture-ruin even better than getting 230 gold or 70 hammers?

 

[Gokudo01]

Honestly, is the current weak culture-ruin even better than getting 230 gold or 70 hammers?

I think the same thing, I never pick culture first when i get the shoshone. Gold and/or hammer because it will free lots of production time and i will be able to get my military units faster/start spamming settler faster.

It's even more relevant when you pick progress/authority because you want to have unlock the right improvement/ to have already some military units to make the good use of your policy.

 

[CrazyG]

Honestly, is the current weak culture-ruin even better than getting 230 gold or 70 hammers?

Is it 70 hammers? I got 45 hammers with my last roll

I agree, 230 gold is the strongest by far, and its too strong. I remember a specific game where I settled forest, met a gold CS and got that ruin super quickly, so by turn 3 I already had a worker and a monument.

 

[Txurce]

Is it 70 hammers? I got 45 hammers with my last roll

I agree, 230 gold is the strongest by far, and its too strong. I remember a specific game where I settled forest, met a gold CS and got that ruin super quickly, so by turn 3 I already had a worker and a monument.

You mean you had a Carthagininan opening?

 

[Funak]

I don't think any of them are necessarily 'too' strong, with the old way the opening policies work as well as the old culture ruin that one was probably too strong, but not anymore I think.

 

[CrazyG]

You mean you had a Carthagininan opening?

I had a carthage opening as India, Earth Mother boosted monument on turn 3 is really powerful. I think its much better than anything I've ever pulled off with Carthage

I like ruins for the variety they add to the game; I want some RNG, but not this much.The current values have too much variance for my taste, I rather see pathfinders just normal yields for finding ruins, and the bonus yields given back to Shoshone

 

[legoras]

You know, you can always use mod 'Promotions - Ancient Ruins Choice'. But because of new pathfinder system need to edit it a little, so not only scouts will be with that promotion, but also new pathfinder

 

[wobuffet]

I'm not sure what function the Pathfinder's +33% ruin bonus is supposed to serve. Pretty much all the ruins I ever pop in my games are popped with a Pathfinder (same with the Scout, before this change); is this not others' experience?

My suggestions:

• Get rid of the Pathfinder's native +33% ruin bonus.
• Offer a Level-1 Pathfinder promotion ("Scavenger") that boosts Ruin bonus by a further 33%.
• Reduce Culture ruin from 15 to 10
• Increase XP ruin from 10 to 30
• Add 45 Gold to Map Reveal ruins and any other ruin types deemed weak

Actually, why not just post a dedicated ruin balance thread? Seems we could have a productive discussion about getting the different ruin types reasonably in line with each other (and maybe workshop a few new ruin ideas, too).

 

[ElliotS]

Offer a Level-1 Pathfinder promotion ("Scavenger") that boosts Ruin bonus by a further 33%.

It was originally like that, and deemed to be useless. A promotion like that is really bad, both for the AI and in general.

I agree ruin balance should be another thread.

 

[wobuffet]

It was originally like that, and deemed to be useless. A promotion like that is really bad, both for the AI and in general.

Ah, okay. Thanks for the info!

 

[CrazyG]

I'm not sure what function the Pathfinder's +33% ruin bonus is supposed to serve. Pretty much all the ruins I ever pop in my games are popped with a Pathfinder (same with the Scout, before this change); is this not others' experience?.

This is exactly my experience and its why I don't think there should be any bonus at all. I don't think its good design to get 22 90+% of the time, but only 15 if a warrior finds it. If people feel that 22 or 45 are better numbers than 15 and 30, then lets address that in another thread

Tying some gold to the map is a decent idea, but I still don't like how it denies scout experience. I have had too many situations where I don't want that land revealed. Especially if playing on some of the multiple continent maps, its very frustrating. I build a pathfinder, then get a map that reveals everything there is to be scouted

I'd just rather have yields that more XP on 2 or 3 units. Those early units fight barbarians and often reach the XP cap anyways, I would still hate this ruin even if it gave 30 XP

 

[tu_79]

Ok, let's separate things. I've opened a new thread for the goody huts.
Here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/goody-huts-rebalance.620269/

EDIT.

Now we can go back at why our pathfinders almost never take the pathfinding promotions, a.k.a., my pathfinder dies too easily with all those barbs around. (Unless they are lucky to upgrade).